Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass has finished questioning the current group of prospective jurors, with defense attorney Todd Blanche now beginning his questions.

Steinglass wrapped up his questioning by asking the prospective jurors to "look inside yourselves" to make certain they could return a guilty verdict against the former president.

"Bottom line is, there are people who for a variety of reasons feel uncomfortable about returning a verdict of guilty in a criminal case," Steinglass said. He sought to make sure these prospective jurors could do it.

"If we do prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to be able to come back in here after deliberations, look the defendant in the eye," Steinglass said. "Look at the defendant and take a look inside yourselves. Will you be able to render a verdict of guilty?"

Trump appeared to be looking at the prospective jurors in the jury box as they each answered "Yes" to Steinglass's question. Trump tilted his head once or twice as they were answering.

Under questioning from Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, prospective jurors agreed to weigh the evidence before them and nothing else -- vowing to set aside any personal feelings toward the former president or outside influences, in order to deliver a fair verdict.

"The particulars of this case -- it doesn't really have anything to do with my political inclinations," said the IT professional who earlier elicited a smile from Trump. "I can judge this case on the merits."

"I'm going to listen to all the facts," one woman said.

A retired MTA official who lives in the Lower East Side pledged to "give this man a fair shake." She described the judicial system as "great," but added that it could "use some tweaking in some places."

Trump, meanwhile, has been craning his neck, trying to look past his attorney Todd Blanche to get a view of the jurors as they field questions from Steinglass.

A woman who works for New York City told the court, "I'm a public servant and I've built my entire career trying to serve the city I live in and I see this as an extension of that," as individual questioning of prospective jurors continued.

She had signaled she had strong views about campaign finance, but said "I don't believe so" when Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass asked whether that would affect her ability to judge the case fairly.

Earlier, a self-employed woman who has lived on the Upper East Side for 25 years let out an audible sigh.

She had reached the part of the questionnaire that asked whether she can decide the case solely on the evidence and whether she had strong beliefs about Trump that would inhibit her from being fair.

"I'm not 100% sure I could be fair," the woman said, and was excused.

When a school teacher from Harlem who is in her late 20s answered the same question, she spoke about the 2020 election.

"There was a divide in the country and I can't ignore that," she said. "However, I never equated that to one individual." She remained in the jury pool.

Jury selection is moving into a new phase with lawyers beginning the individual questioning of prospective jurors who made it through Judge Merchan's initial cuts.

Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, up first, reminded prospective jurors that the case is not a referendum on their politics.

"Really give us the most honest answers you can," Steinglass said. "No one is suggesting you can't be a fair juror because you've heard of Donald Trump." He added, "We don't expect you to have been living under a rock for the last eight years or the last 30 years."

Steinglass first asked whether anyone felt like the district attorney's office had to prove more than the law requires "because of who he is."

Not a single hand went up.

"I think the job of the jury is to understand what's facts," one woman said. "I don't think it matters what my political views are. We listen to the facts of the case."

Trump is engaged with some of the responses at times, and at other times he leans back in his chair with his eyelids heavy.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, back on the witness stand, pointed at Donald Trump and flashed a smile when he was asked to identify the defendant. Trump turned his chin up and grinned at his longtime friend.

"I met Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago," Pecker said. "I've had a great relationship with Mr. Trump over the years."

That relationship started in 1989 when Pecker wanted to start a magazine called Trump Style.

"He was very helpful in introducing me to other executives in New York. He would always advise me of parties or events that I would go to," Pecker said, adding that Trump was among the first to congratulate him upon acquiring the National Enquirer.

Pecker described how Trump became a "major celebrity" after launching The Apprentice and later Celebrity Apprentice, and how the National Enquirer was there to juice Trump's profile.

"He was always kind enough to send me the content showing the ratings and I was able to publish that," Pecker said of their "great mutual beneficially relationship.

Pecker said he considered Trump a friend from 2015 to 2017, calling him by the familiar "Donald," as he pursued the White House for the first time.

"After he announced his run for the presidency I saw Mr. Trump more frequently, maybe once a month," Pecker said. The two spoke "maybe once every couple of weeks."

Pecker recalled meeting Trump in his office when his assistant brought a batch of invoices and checks to sign.

"As I recollect the entire package was stapled together," Pecker said.

"So you observed him reviewing an invoice and signing a check?" prosecutor Josh Steinglass asked. "That's correct," Pecker responded.

"I would describe him as very knowledgeable, very detail-oriented, almost as a micromanager," Pecker said.

When Steinglass asked how Trump was with money, Pecker responded, "He was very cautious and very frugal."